Evolution, Adaptive Beliefs and Tigers

[shizzleman8]

Naturalism is an untestable theory. It is a theory that there is nothing outside of the kinds of things that physics studies that there is nothing outside of matter and motion. That theory is consistently rejected by the majority of mankind so surely it is a hypothesis, and it is an untestable hypothesis. There is no way from external observations that an inidvidual is conscious. It is only because of our own individual personal experience of being aware that we know that consciousness exists.

[zarkoff45]

And how in the world would Paul get these strange wrong beliefs? Beliefs are not like instincts, you are not born with them. You have to learn your beliefs and it would be weird and probably impossible to learn that badly and survive.

I dealt with Plantinga also:

watch?v=eU-wpNOyuas

But I actually agree in strange way -- a lot of our beliefs are false, like religious and philosophical beliefs. These are the beliefs that can not be tested and that do not matter to survival.

[AtheistRightWing]

I might have the answer for the question you ended the video with. In a complex society humans specialize, and they do so in the sphere of knowledge and power. Hence people who specialize in things other than knowledge find it to be an excessive, inefficient expense to pursue knowledge.

[iamundergrace]

if we are all part of this process, then how can you know that you are not under the system that you state in the vid.

[haerverk]

Nice in-depth demonstration. It might be usefull for many if you put a link to an introduction of memetics in the description. If people are onboard with M it will be alot easier to digest this. Or it could work as a good vid to spark their interest in M.

Great nonetheless!

[zapzapzapche]

boring.sorry.you go into unnecessary detail.

[ReligionIsACrutch]

Ultimately, this is a question of stability. We tend to think of true beliefs as more stable than false beliefs. But is this the case universally? I don't know but I doubt it. I've seen some fairly stable false beliefs, such as geocentricism, determinism, and so on. How stable a belief is has a lot to do with the practical implications of that belief. If a false belief has unstable but impractical implications then those implications are less likely to be tested and shown as wrong.

[haerverk]

Id say the stability comes in when a network of false beliefs reaches a kind of critical mass. Aswell as the particular implications of course. But as the false belief gets further and further from the original false premisses, it can develope more and more "sane"(relative to their origin) adaptations and thus end up mingling with the true belifs, both in terms of practicality and stability...->

[haerverk]

(continued)

So the further down the line you get, the more you are going to struggle trying to differentiate the true from the false.

Best to nib'em in the bud Im afraid.

[RyuDarragh]

Think of it this way. The patellar reflex (the knee thing with the little triangular rubber hammer) is a behaviour, not a belief. The Flight/Fight reflex is a behaviour in the form of an instinct, not a belief. Belief requires cognition. The wife has a ferret who believes she has to rub the edges of her water bowl before she drinks. However you want to pick apart that behaviour, she learned it and it has become a habit that other ferrets do not exhibit. (1 of 2)

[RyuDarragh]

(2 of 2) But, that's all part of having a brain and evolution has been going on long before brains. Evolution by natural selection requires only improved adaptation to a given environment. Belief is a higher order effect and would have to obey the same rules or it becomes irrelevent in evolutionary terms. Thus, belief, right and wrong don't matter. Results do. Holding incorrect beliefs can, and does, get creatures dead. Holding correct beliefs usually does not. Results. Simple.

[RyuDarragh]

"Adaptive beliefs" posits belief, not instinct. Instinct is behavioral. Belief is cogitational.

[bitbutter]

Not sure i follow.

[Epydemic2020]

Perhaps I missed something. Why would Plantinga want to argue for adaptive beliefs which are false? I don't understand the point of making that argument, even if it was true.

[bitbutter]

Plantinga wanted to show that natural selection couldn't be relied upon to produce minds that were good are holding true beliefs. So he tried to show that a mind that was 'good for' false adaptive beliefs was as likely to emerge as one that was 'good for' true adaptive beliefs.

His larger aim was to show that belief in evolution theory, without a God guiding it, should lead to a kind radical undermining skepticism about our beliefs.

[zarkoff45]

@Epydemic2020 "Why would Plantinga want to argue for adaptive beliefs which are false?"

I've got clips of Plantinga explaining why in my videos:

watch?v=eU-wpNOyuas

watch?v=D65WS8l8oCA

[dewonthegrass]

I watched his video and it only shows that he hasn't acquainted himself with the arguments of his opposition (evolution phisics, science in general).

[h8uall66]

Excellent points my friend. I typically view most apologists arguments, Plantiga's included, as a sort of assault on the concept of reason itself. To me, apologists seem to be people that are looking for a reason to believe. But the universe really doesn't provide one.

[Danmill23]

Do you have a cape BB?

Also have you ever or do you ever wear your underwear on the exterior of your apparel, in conjunction with "sporting" a cape?

And finally do you now or have you ever had the logo "BB" (inside a flaming shield) printed, stenciled or embroidered across any of your shirts or jumpers?

I ask only because when trouble arises many will attempt rescue, thankfully if they fail, we can always trust in your uncanny ability to arrive at the last minute and save the day.

[bitbutter]

What an image. Thanks danmill23! I can think of a couple of superhero-styled youtube accounts already. I wouldn't want to crowd their turf ;)

[unseenstrings]

An example of a false adaptive belief is when moth predators avoid the Yellow-banded Wasp Moth. Of course, not all moths looks like wasps. Therefore, moth-eaters are able to survive without eating the Yellow-banded Wasp Moth. And of course, the moth is able to survive because it is such a good liar. LOL!

Now when we consider an animal with complex language, then seems Memetic Theory may be necessary to to explain phenomena triggered by language that wouldn't apply to animals unaffected by such.

[unseenstrings]

Before humans had evolved the capability of complex language, beliefs were based on actual experience. The lion ate sis at the watering hole. So avoid lions or you may get eaten. I've seen many animals fixated with aversion/fear after seeing and hearing another animal scream in pain. Naturally, the possibility exists that when language came on the scene and persuasive fools/liars were able to change the mind of those who had seen sis eaten, then those who were convinced fell prey to the lion too

[unseenstrings]

Regardless of whether selective pressures acted on those who could be convinced otherwise or not, the fact is, animals are fixated with aversion upon seeing and hearing the screams and acts of terror of another animal. We could call this fixation, a belief. Now, it should gradually become evident why the human animal--once it has been fixated with a belief, such as one established with images of Heaven and Hell--clings to that belief so strongly. That is the way evolution has made him (or her).

[bitbutter]

With the wasp moths, we could talk about there being false 'beliefs' (on the part of potential preditors, they falsely 'believe' that its a wasp). But this belief is not adaptive, because the predator's ability to survive is not increased by mistaking the moth for a wasp.

[unseenstrings]

We have no argument--only emphasis. I'd like to add though that Alvin Plantinga's argument assumes nonhuman animals, in this case a goat, is capable of thought that would require the capacity and ability to use complex language. A goat could not have a linguistically structured false belief because the beliefs of a goat can only be based on feelings develop through experience or through genetic tendencies. Plantinga's argument is totally absurd for that reason. Few animals have complex language

[unseenstrings]

For all we know the whale's "song" could be oral tradition similar to human oral tradition before writing was invented. In other words, possibly only the whale and the human is capable of having linguistically based false beliefs. And if the whale's song isn't really a language, then on this planet only humans are capable of possessing linguistically structured false beliefs. Of course, as mentioned, to understand the evolution of false beliefs, Memetic Theory becomes necessary.

Naturalism Org

[SpookyFan]

Nice explanation.

The camera seems more flattering in this vid, btw.

[bitbutter]

Thanks spookyfan. This time i was using a Nikon d90 SLR. It has a nice film-like quality i think. Takes a bit longer to set up than the isight though.

[RosieDesire]

I supose false adaptive beliefs only need to work well enough to survive and reproduce or at least not prevent it. False adaptive beliefs can be enforced by correlation.

[LennyBound]

4:14 = Reading a lot of Quine lately? Haha. :-)

[bitbutter]

In fact I've not deliberately read any Quine yet, though I'm sure I've come across his ideas indirectly.

[LennyBound]

His most famous paper is "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" which was anthologized in his book "From a Logical Point of View." In it he attacks the analytic/synthetic distinction that was at the foundation of logical positivism, and replaces it with a holistic theory of meaning that accounts for our ever changing "web of belief." As a result, he's one of the fathers of "coherentist" epistemology.

[LennyBound]

But yeah... from what I can tell Quine is pretty much right about everything. I strongly suggest looking into him if you get the chance. :-)

[Neilsama]

I have to wonder if Plantinga has ever tried to run from a tiger. That's not really an effective way to avoid being eaten. Two legs versus four legs. Four legs wins.

[bitbutter]

I'd guess that, absent spear or fire, running has a higher success rate than not running though.

[Pylo01]

Isn't religion an interesting example of false adaptive believes?

Or am I missing something.

[bitbutter]

The tendency for religious belief may be adaptive, or it may be a by-product of something else that is.

[tooltime9901]

good video. I have a similar one planned that I have yet to get around to making. I think Plantinga's argument has some serious flaws that the arguments fan-boys just fail to grasp.

[bitbutter]

Thanks, looking forward to it.

[hilbert54]

Well done.

I thought exactly that when I saw migkiller put this argument. Not to detract from your video, but it's obvious that we have a network of beliefs and that we generalise from the particular, reification. This would only work if our beliefs were mostly true.

I thought I must be missing something.

[legodesi]

i think Plantinga's argument is effective in rebutting particular forms of naturalism that espouse epiphenomenalism (which is that mental states are non-phyiscal and wholly determined by physical brain states).

[SirPwn4lot]

Great video.